About your Search

20110701
20110731
SHOW
STATION
CSPAN2 46
LANGUAGE
English 46
Search Results 0 to 45 of about 46
on counternarcotics efforts in afghanistan. after that, former pakistani president musharraf, then we're live with president obama as he addresses the national conference of the national council of la raza, and later the senate returns at 2 eastern for a period of general speeches follow bed later by debate and votes on judicial nominations. >>> also today on the c-span networks a discussion on the political transition in egypt. you'll hear from a member of the country's supreme council of the armed forces, the group that's been overseeing egypt's transition to democracy since the removal of former president hosni mubarak. he'll discuss the pace of change, the demands of protesters and the role of the military. the forum is hosted by the u.s. institute of peace. it's live at 12:15 eastern on our companion network, c-span3. >>> if you want to be informed about what is happening in the world and particularly in american politics and particularly in the congress, it's not so hard. c-span has a digital online archive that goes back to '79 or -- >> 1987. >> 1987. where you can, basically, watch an
services and a surge of combat vets from the iraq and afghanistan wars entering the system, the demand for v.a. health care services has increased dramatically in recent years. this bill provides $58.6 billion for v.a. discretionary funding, $2.3 billion over current funding. the bill also includes $52.5 billion in fy 2013 advanced appropriations for vets' medical care. one of the very few areas in which this bill provides an increase in funding is v.a. medical research, which is $72 million over the budget request to restore funding to the current level. with little room to maneuver on the v.a. side of the ledger, the vast majority of the savings in the bill comes from incrementing or defunding certain military construction projects. the bill provides $13.7 billion for military construction, $1 billion below the request. the milcon reductions in the bill are restricted to the active-duty components. the guard and reserve components, family housing, barrack and other accounts are fully funded at the president's request. every military construction project funded in this bill is authori
, for example capture someone like i'm in also was yuri and yemen outside of afghanistan, for example, could we detain and at that detention facilities bear? >> we would not recommend that. >> why is that? >> afghanistan is a sovereign country. >> so we're not going to use detention cell at these to detain terrorists captured outside the territory of afghanistan? >> is not her attention. >> following up, admiral, with respect to detention, if we were to capture all that was yuri -- although heery and gather intelligence in detaining him long-term because we thought we needed to underlie floor, where would we hold? >> yes, ma'am, that is a policy question i am not in a position to answer from the military standpoint. obviously we can hold al-zawahiri or anywhere al-awlaki in a number of places. it becomes a policy issue and general allen said we afflict a number times that whether or not we do that in afghanistan. but the nature of the sovereignty of afghanistan and concerned about potential backlash from the afghan government, we have recommended not to do that. >> admiral, would it not be hope
with the u.s. involvement in afghanistan and iraq. and as we'll hear from general d dudick, there's 400,000 in afghanistan. and the u.s.-led training effort is now as of this week 157,000 police, the cost of this training to the united states alone is about a billion dollars a month. today police assistance programs for the united states government are a multibillion dollar effort led by the department of defense and the department of state but involving a number of other federal agencies. as programs have grown in size and in costs they've also grown in kind. as you saw from the opening photo exhibition running here on the screens, policing around the world is heavily impacted by history, by culture, by legal systems, and by levels of development. the police force is different markedly by country, u.s. police assistance differs markedly by agent and by agency in the countries in which they are working. so today, we have assembled a panel of very distinguished experts to discuss the various experts that the united states government takes in approaching those countries. you have th
.a. estimates that the number of iraq and afghanistan veterans in its health care system will reach well over half a million at some point next year. that is this aisn' this a 100% e 2008. this is a big challenge and one that we have no choice but to step up to meet if we're going to avoid some of the same mistakes we saw with the vietnam generation. that's why this bill includes nearly $3 billion to meet the health care needs of veterans who served in iraq and afghanistan, which is a nearly $600 million increase over last year. but it is more than just the sheer number of new veterans that will be coming home to the v.a. in the near near future. it is the extent of their wounds, both visible and invisible, that will require an untold resource from our nation. you know, through the wonders of modern medicine service members who would have been lost in previous conflicts are coming home to live productive and fulfilling lives. but they will need a lifetime of care from the v.a. and that's why part of this bill includes significant investments for research in a number of areas, including trauma
risked his life to save his fellow soldiers on the battlefields of afghanistan. today sergeant first class petrie will be honored for his conspicuous gallantry with our nation's highest military decoration: the medal of honor. i will be humbled to be at the white house along with sergeant first class petrie's family, friends, and fellow soldiers, as president obama honors him with the congressional medal of honor. it will be a special day for sergeant first class petrie, for his wife, his children, and his -- and all his family and for his fellow americans. as he becomes only the second living active duty service member to receive the medal of honor for actions in iring or afghanistan. -- in iraq or afghanistan. sergeant first class petrie's story is one of courage and sacrifice and immense love of country. it's a story that began years ago in santa fe with a young plan who struggled in high school but refused to give up and instead buckled down, dug deep, and found the hero within. a hero to the men he saved on that fateful day in afghanistan and a hero to all americans who owe thei
the president to wage war. we do so at a time when the united states is so engaged in wars in afghanistan and iraq and our national debt exceeds $14 trillion. in light of these circumstances and the lack of united states vital interests in in libya, i do not believe we should be intervening in a civil war there. american combat forces are so efficient at certain types of operations and are over the horizon technology is so potent that the use of the military instrument to right wrongs exists as a tremendous temptation for presidents. american intervention in libya did not come as a result of a disciplined assessment of our vital interests or an authorization debate in the congress. given all that is at stake in pakistan, afghanistan, iran, saudi arabia, egypt, syria, yemen and elsewhere in the islamic world, a rational strategic assessment would not devote sizable american military and economic resources to a civil war in libya. it is an expensive diversion that leaves the united states and our european allies with fewer assets to respond to other contingencies. under the constitution, it
how many of the current inhabitants of guantanamo were arrested in countries other than afghanistan and pakistan. with the help of pakistan. so i think that sometimes we just go from one end of greek allies, great friends which is what was your longtime, in the previous administration, two gosh, these guys are no good, et cetera. this is not the way to do business between two allies and partners. and i think we will not interpret the remarks as a letter. we understand them to be a reflection of american statement of policy, and the americans have the right to defend their homeland by ensuring that terrorists are plotting against the american homeland are dealt with. but as far as the other concern, we are very confident of our sovereignty. we would like to protect our sovereignty. and sovereignty requires that when operations take place in pakistan they should take place without knowledge and our participation. >> a quick follow. does that mean if there's a second rate, that your forces would fire on the rich? >> when i became ambassador to the united states, i went and saw very goo
, reduced spending on the wars in afghanistan and iraq and through targeted cuts to mandatory spending. it doesn't raise taxes and it doesn't touch medicare, medicaid or social security. again, this is not a perfect plan. i have been on the floor many times in favor of a balanced package that includes cuts to spending, domestic, defense and mandatory, but also includes increased revenues. the reid princess plan doesn't e those goals -- the reid plan doesn't achieve those goals but i hope we will get there eventually. this is not a proposal i would have written, but i'm one of more than 100 members of the senate and more than 535 members of congress, and i don't get everything i want. none of us here in congress get everything we want. that's the nature of compromise. that's the nature of democracy, and that's why the framers of the constitution created checks and balances in government. that's why they created two chambers in congress and three branches of government, and when you're a leader in government, you just don't have the luxury of drawing a line in the sand and walking away.
drawing down the cost of our military efforts in afghanistan and iraq. last year we spent a little over $150 billion. this year we'll spend a little over $100 billion. and the plan is to soon be down to at least $50 billion in two or three years. so over the ten-year period there'll be about eight years at nearly $50 billion or so spent on the war instead of $150 billion. that's part of the plan that we've been operating on for a long time. $150 billion for the war is not baseline expenditure of the united states. it was never projected to continue at that level, so hopefully we could bring it below $50 billion. maybe we went get to $50 billion. i don't know. but what is the reasonable estimate? i think the house republicans and the president said it would drop to $50 billion, and that would be the baseline out there for the rest of the time. that's $1 trillion. that's $1 trillion. so you take $1 trillion out of the $2.7 trillion, you're down to $1.7 trillion. and another thing that's scored in that, since that $1 trillion in war costs is scored the way mr. reid scored that, which is ph
from the iraq and afghanistan wars are real. that's c.b.o. saying it. not some democrat who's hoping and praying for an easy fix. this completely undercuts the arguments by republicans who have tried to call these savings a gimmick, even though they included them in their own budget and voted for them only a few months ago. if it was knock their budget -- if it was okay in their budget, it's got to be okay in our budget. you can't just change your mind based on whose budget it is. the substance should matter to some extent. plus, since the c.b.o. will only measure the plan's first draft before aofficial plan savings were incorporated into the bill, the final version will achieve even deeper savings when it is filed on the floor. as "politico" reports this morning, "in the battle of budget scores, the senate democratic deficit-reduction bill is the clear winner thus far over an alternative by speaker john boehner." and lastly, senator reid's proposal allows for a joint committee that has the potential to achieve even deeper savings down the road to get our country back on the path to
of the war in afghanistan, which is what we're going to spend over the next four years? now there is a good cut that we ought to make. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee rise? >> ask unanimous consent to address the house. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. roe: thank you, madam speaker. i rise today to recognize a true american hero, private first class joe immediate. private class meed was a member of mike company third battalion, 26th marines. he died in vietnam when his battalion was fightin while carrng a wounded comrade to a wounded helicopter, he stepped on a land mine and was killed. he was on a -- he was only 19 at the time. in recognition of his valor he was awarded the silver star. dwayne crawford, his former commanding officer who recently founded a scholarship in his officer, had these words to say about joe's actions. with total disregard for his own life, he continually exposed himself to danger by administering first aid to his wounded comrades. offering them comforting words and helping them to me
influences our decision-making. you're the soviet invasion of afghanistan, which reignites the cold war period and makes the importance of u.s. national security fears ever more important for the american public. you've got economic issues at home that certainly dog people's perceptions of the administration, as well as the ability of the government to finance the things that it would like to do. all of those things and many, many more of course influence very to policies and the carter administration, and certainly space policy as well. so it's my pleasure to ask art to come up to the podium. he developed the memoranda for the present on many national security issues, including space policy and export controls. art. >> thank you. it's interesting to be your come and thank you for the invitation to represent the carter administration space policy in the evolution of space policymaking. i'd like to thank the space enterprise institute and the marshall institute for sponsoring this event. as i look over the audience, it's interesting to see a multi-generational, people that work with over
or afghanistan. at one point the c.i.a. director, leon panetta, speculated that if osama bin laden had been captured alive, he would have been sent to guantanamo. over time, it became clear that the administration did not have a policy in place that could address this circumstance. and so without a straight answer, we were left in the dark on how this administration would handle an enemy combatant captured overseas. finally after waiting 18 months, i think we have our answer. as was disclosed yesterday, he has been in military custody for months during which time he has been interrogated by various law enforcement agencies. however, now he has been read his miranda rights. this is a somalian terrorist captured overseas has now been read his miranda rights. why? why? why is a man who is a known terrorist and member of the united states -- and enemy of the united states being afforded the protections of an american citizen? and now he is in the hands of civilian authorities and will be given all the rights according to a u.s. citizen in a civilian court. it is truly astonishing that this admi
in afghanistan in a strategy of nation building that is not the best use of our national security, not the best use of our soldiers who are there to fight for our national security, but those are decisions that were made in the past. and we must pay the bill on those decisions even when i disagreed with them. and then we need to put together a plan that takes on our deficit and our debt, and that plan has to put all of the options on the table. some of my colleagues across the aisle, they said, well, we want to protect the tax spending programs where we've tucked in tax provisions for the wealthy and the well connected. we want to defend those. we don't want to touch those for the best-off americans. but we want to cut the programs for working americans. that is unacceptable. we have seen enormous increase in the disparity between the wages and welfare of our citizens in general and the best-off becoming much, much wealthier proportionately. we can't continue to say that we're going to protect the well-connected while attacking working families. that's not the america we want to build. we want
, for example, thel war in afghanistan are committing the united states of america to spending $10 billion a monthhis em gomen in uniform. cin members of a family who are ovei there waging this war. they voted for that. money president obama has said toe m them, the bill is coming in for the war inre afghanistan. sayine i have to very money to pay for it. fo fo houseeb and senate who voted for the war not to understand say wr won't pay the bills.nistan. we want allow you, mr. president to sustain our military force io afghanistan. that is literally what we'ren do taught about here in this debate. the american people are turning to come to understand it because when you first ask a person, tht obvious answer is no, are you crazy, senator? by what i want one of them in this country? we need more less stack, notts e more. when you go to the point ofjusto explaining that this is to pay d for things we authority -- that's the authority incurred, it isn't just a wage of war. 65a it is a debt incurred to pay fot medicare. we staaidl a to 65-year-olds acr america, you get medicare that will be the
military to be getting the news in afghanistan and iraq of all the upheaval in washington, because they're getting the news, of course. and for them to worry, oh, my gosh what happens august 2 if my paycheck isn't there or my wife or my husband -- for my wife or my husband to be able to use that to pay our mortgage or the basic expenses? i just want to put it in perspective here. we have people in the military with boots on the ground by the thousands that are making under $20,000 a year. now, those are people who are living paycheck to paycheck. they don't have the luxury of having a big savings account with that kind of income, and especially if they've got children. my goodness, they're making under $18,000 a year, some of these younger junior members of the enlisted corps. so i don't think we ought to make them worry for ten seconds if they can pay their basic bills for their housing and the food for their families. in my state of texas, there are 28,000 brave men and women deployed in the support of operations in iraq and afghanistan. there are more than 97,000 service members depl
there, as little afghanistan's. so a year ago al-shabaab conducted the first attacks, actually outside of somalia. they killed 76 people, including one american in uganda. so there's a growing concern that al-shabaab leaders are striving to strike targets, not just beyond somalia now, but beyond africa. a european plot was recently uncovered. it was in the works and it was uncovered. so links between al-shabaab and al qaeda in the arabian peninsula, the most active of all of the al qaeda franchises, are becoming clearer and clearer to us in the united states. they are communicating more about operations. they are working together on training. they are working together on tactics. the bomb making capability that al qaeda has, the expertise that they have there is being combined with al-shabaab's recruits. and these recruits frequently have western passports. many of them have u.s. passports. this is quite a deadly combination. and that's why last month, then cia director panetta called al-shabaab's threat to the u.s. homeland in his words significant and on the rise. u.s. forces have be
these savings from withdrawing from iraq and afghanistan. and essential education, job creation, housing, and environmental investments where america's economic recovery and for our strong economic future would be protected from the slashing cuts proposed by the house republicans. the irony is, republican leaders previously have backed all the spending reductions called for in leader reid's plan. now, i don't agree -- and i suspect all of us don't agree with all aspects of this proposed solution. but we're not going to have 100 solutions on this floor. we're going to have one that we can vote on. i wish this would have included new revenue, especially by ending such costly and outdated tax benefits as those still enjoyed by the biggest oil companies to help us pay off our debt even more quickly. i'd like to help pay for the debt incurred by the inexcusable earlier decisions to enter two wars without paying for them. and i continue to believe the surcharge for the wealthiest would mean that they would pay more of their fair share after so many years of tax cuts that have tilted far more t
wars in iraq and afghanistan and participate in the nato exercise in libya. that's pretty expensive undertaking. we know that that has gone up 84%, military spending, in the last ten years, gone up 84%. we know at the same period of time that spending on mandatory programs -- that would be like social security, medicare, medicaid, agriculture payments, veterans payments. spending for those payments over the last ten years has gone up 32%. and we know that the rest of the budget, the so-called domestic discretionary spending which would include things like building highways, keeping federal prisons open, providing pell grants to college students, giving children from poor families early childhood education, putting money at the national institutes of health for madam chair research. that's one section of the budget. it comprises 12% of our budget. in the last ten years that part of our budget has gone up zero percent. no increase in spending in that section. most of our spending goes into the military, 84% increase over ten years, and mandatory programs, 32% over ten years. the bigge
billion in iraq and afghanistan to train the security forces, less than $10 billion to retrain our work force for the jobs of the future. well, mr. president, i see others have come on the floor. i'll wrap this up. deficit reduction is important. i'm not saying it isn't. but it is not the single-most important thing right now. the single-most important thing is to put people back to work. that will, as senator wyden said earlier, start to create the demand. it will spur more private investment as the federal government begins to invest in the future of this country. that's where we ought to be focusing on. once we get the wheels going again, once we get people back to work and the economy start to to -- starts to grow, that's when we start to reduce the deficit. to just focus on deficit reduction right now to the exclusion of putting people back to work reminds me of when doctors used to put leaches on people who were ill. it only made them more ill because it drained more blood out of their system. and most times proved fatal, as it did to our first president, george washington. our ur
that it needs that is a small percentage for wasting infrastructure in afghanistan. the notion that the cftc that the 80 or $90 billion more that we need can't be done because of the deficit that people spent in $147 billion so we can keep subsidizing american farmers is nonsense. similarly with the fcc they want to turn in. they will bring in more money to the system than it will be given to run it. that's one effect. in fact, what you have running here is a catch 22. first, deny the fcc and cftc adequate funding. they in turn are not able to deal with the rulemaking requirements that they have. then because we haven't been able to move as quickly, that's something they have imposed. obviously, you want the fcc and cftc to have smart people and information technology. i have to say i do not see it coming from the financial institutions. many of them recognize while you may not like the rules, if you've got the rules, you want them well run. this is coming from the republican party who just believe despite all of the evidence to the contrary that an unregulated free market works. you saw thi
social security but not the wife of a soldier in afghanistan. that's not such a good idea. maybe we won't pay the veterans benefit. we'll pay the idea. not such a good idea. what about those 12 million to 15 million students head ofd to college in the next few weeks with a student grant or staopbt loan from the federal government?shall we pay those je public colleges take care of their own? you see what can happen if we had a country, especially a country like the united states, which instead of paying all of its obleses on time, whether it is to china or japan or grandma or to the veteran, that we begin to selectively pay those bills when we had the money. i think i know what would happen. instead of being able to borrow money for ten years at 3%, we might have to pay a little more for it. let's say it just went from 3% to 4%, what would mean to us? it would mean, according to the congressional budget office, that the taxpayers would have to pay $1.3 trillion more in interest over ten years. so if it goes up to 5%, that's twice that. or it goes up to 3% -- that's what happens when you
arsenal. the current inventory is getting old and worn down from iraq and afghanistan. some equipment can be refurbished with life extension programs, but there is no getting around the fact that others must be replaced. when it comes to our military modernization accounts, he said the proverbial low-lying or low-hanging fruit, those weapons and other programs considered most questionable have not only been plucked, they have been stomped on and crushed. what remains are much-needed capabilities relating to our air superiority, our mobility, long-range strike, nuclear deterrents, maritime access, space and cyberwarfare, ground forces, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance that our nation's civilian and military leadership deemed absolutely critical. and he gave examples of a new tanker. he noted the ones we have are twice as old as many of the pilots who are flying them. a new generation strike fighter, the f-35. he said we have got to build more ships. the size of the navy has sunk to the lowest number since prior to world war ii. the army and marines, doing the bulk of our fight
iraq and afghanistan sooner than many here would like or that the president would like, and save substantial sums if we do that. most certainly if we're going to go forward with shared sacrifice, yes, we do have to ask billions, despite all of their power and all of their campaign contributions and all of their lobbying, maybe the billionaires who are doing phenomenally well may have to contribute to deficit reduction. yes, maybe those companies that stash their money in tax hyphens in pwerpld and the cayman eye hraldz -- in bermuda and the cayman islands, maybe they are going to have to start paying their fair share. on my web site which is sanders.senate.gov, i put a small letter which said to the president, mr. president, stand tall. take on these right-wing ideologues who want to make devastating cuts to working families. and in a couple of weeks we have 135,000 signatures on that letter, and i think that letter reflects what the american people want. they want shared sacrifice. they do not want to see the elderly, the kids or working families being battered more and more, es
though some would argue that it's the iraq and afghanistan war winddown savings that you would get, but whatever it is, it is larger than the house proposal and use that as the first cut by lifting the debt ceiling. but there would be a sequence of events that would happen after that to avoid what the senate democrats do not want, that the markets and the rating agencies cause the debt instruments, the u.s. treasury bills, to be downgraded, there needs to be certainty for those rating agencies for the united states government debt. and it could be achieved this way. that you have a brac-like committee, that being a committee that would be composed equally of republicans and democrats that would come up with a package that would then come back to each house, no amendments, up-or-down vote. but that the fail-safe backup in case that that committee were not able to come to agreement, or in the event that it came back to both houses and one of the houses did not pass it, that you would then have the mcconnell proposal which is that the president would request the increase of the debt a
assistance force, isaf, and u.s. forces afghanistan. the president expressed his full confidence in general allen as he begins this important assignment and that he said he looks forward to working closely with him. and with that i will take your questions. >> i want to follow-up on something the president said. he claimed to call speaker boehner and the other leaders after the house vote to resume meetings here, is that right? should we respect resumption a daily meeting? >> no, i think the president will call speaker boehner, based on what he said. he will call the leaders and arrange for a time for a meeting to happen here at the white house. is not a series of meetings budget sometime in the next few days. >> he also made note at the end there that is in progress or agreement with the concept of six or seven senators, how is the white house expects what this again is think to have an impact on the house republican? >> the news from the gang of six/seven italy a significant because it dramatized and reinforces the fact that the only way to deal a significant deficit reduction bill is to
dark. paychecks for troops in afghanistan and iraq and based around the world could stop. f.a.a. towers could shut down. so could the f.b.i. and the c.i.a., border crossings could close, safety inspections of food americans eat and cargo that enters our ports could halt. literally every function of government could cease. social security checks, payments to our veterans. we've heard that before. there would be no discussion of which operations and personnel were essential. all the payments would very likely stop. some have said we could prioritize which bills to pay. even if that wouldn't irreparably damage our nation's reputation and credit in the global economy and the globe at community, which it would, is also a complete fiction. our government won't even be able to cover the bills due on august 3. it will simply run out of money and because we'll be in default and our credit rating trashed, we'll be able to borrow the money not again to keep running, even if we wanted to. that's a picture secretary geithner painted. like i said, it's grim. many of my republican colleagues understan
a war of necessity in afghanistan, keeping us there far longer than necessary, at an additional cost of $430 billion, unpaid for. a total cost for both wars, unpaid for, of $1.2 trillion. the republican party that will not now agree to one penny in revenue and demands only more spending cuts has fought to make tax breaks for the wealthy permanent that would cost this nation another $5 trillion. their favorite big business in wall street and a tax code that has resulted in major multibillion-dollar corporations paying no taxes -- yes, no taxes at all. in fact, a detailed government accountability office study of corporate income taxes from 1998-2005 showed that 55% of large u.s. corporations reported no, no tax liability for at least one of those eight years. yet, those same republicans will look us in the eye in defense of their defenseless position and tell us that most individuals do not pay taxes either. what they will not say is that those individuals who do not pay taxes do not pay taxes for a reason. they do not earn enough to pay income tax, and many of them are among the poor
to the president of the united states, as an example, we want you to continue to wage war in afghanistan at the cost of $10 billion a month, this president knows that he will have to borrow about $4 billion a month to meet that congressional appropriation. you see, we borrow about 40 cents for every dollar we spend. similarly, when it comes to the payments that we make to our veterans, who are disabled, we have promised them we will pay you, because you served our country and you lost a limb or you were injured and we will compensate you for that loss for the rest of your life. we need in making that commitment that we're also making a commitment to borrow the money necessary to do it. so periodically a president will come to congress and say, i understand our obligations which you have sent to me and i have approved, and now i ask you to extend my authority to borrow the money to meet those obligations. that has happened 89 times since 1939. since we passed this law, presidents of both parties have come to congress and asked for that authority. and aceman as i mentioned, not d congress
bring our combat troops home fromex afghanistan, that we can expect the international community to do more than we can bring about savings on the military side. let me talk about the last major component of the conrad budgetly and how it differs substantially from the ryan budget. not a serious revenues. i know there's been a lot of so discussion about revenues. so what does the democratic budget due in this regard? it takes i revenues to 19.5% of our gross domestic product, gdp. mr. president, that is t phe sae amount of us raised on the clinton presidency when we had unprecedented prosperity and jow growth in america. now, how do wehe get there? how do we get the revenues that we need in order to be able to h bring this debt under control? well, senator conrad has given us some direction on how we canr do that. he has pointed out that sheltere and loopholes need to be closede these are inefficiencies in our kax code today. tal i take the floor on two occasions recently to talk aboue some that i think we shouldat eliminate pier one, the ethanole subsidy.ubsidy. the majority of the se
's why. how many wars are we fighting now? let's name them. afghanistan, iraq, pakistan, libya, and soon as mr. leon panetta says, we'll be fighting in iran. we have military operations all over the middle east. why can't we divert some of those funds, cut some of those wars and not cut social security because social security never impacted on our debt. social security was funded all along so why are we cutting social security? >> guest: well, let me just assure you we are not going to cut social security, okay? i think there might be efforts in the house to cut social security, and it might possibly pass, although i certainly know that the cut cap and whatever it's called won't pass because it requires a two-thirds vote and you need 50 democrats to vote for it, and i don't believe we'll have 50 democrats to vote for it, but i guarantee you if any measure passed the house of social security, it would not be taken up in the senate, and if it did, i believe the president would veto it. you know, you're a retiree, paid into social security, all of your working life, and you deserve to conti
on what i think is a classic american problem. i mean, we're not talking about the war in afghanistan, we're not talking about raising the debt ceiling. i grant that. but we are talking about something, which is profoundly troubling and disturbing to millions of americans. and it's also necessary. i mean, i thought we were going to do was clear problems here. and 10 years ago the telephone entity came to us two essences for clear problems because they make us look bad if we don't end there you can trust us to do it and they did it. so while i am saying is we are going to stick with this. the sec stated yesterday is now seeking comment on third party billing and i appreciate that. and don't they have settlements, the ftc, but that is all stuff that is already john and also as a mission of guilt. if you settle something, it's a mission of guilt. i'm not a lawyer. i want you to know that, but that's the way i read it. so anyway, in the near future, i plan to introduce working with colleagues from both sides of the aisle, legislation that will put a staff to this because i simply cannot find
be directly affected by a government default. paychecks for soldiers, in afghanistan and iraq and at bases around the world conceivably wouldn't go out. f.a.a. towers could shut down. border crossings could close. operations at the f.b.i. and the c.i.a. would be put at risk. safety inspections of the food that we eat and the cargo that enters our ports could halt. and the resulting spike in interest rates would ironically make our debt even harder to tackle because each 1% rise in interest rates alone would result in $130 billion in increased interest payments on our national debt each year. perhaps, most importantly, hard-working american families would also feel the crunch. a spike in interest rates would effectively force a tax on all americans and american businesses due to increased consumer costs. just as important, failure to raise the debt limit would lock up credit markets because the u.s. would no longer be seen as a reliable credit risk. coincidentally, mr. president, yesterday an important consumer protection law which senator lugar and i introduced and passed and you helped us
with bills and insurance companies. soldiers, in too many cases returning from iraq and afghanistan, are facing even greater challenges in the working market. i was at youngstown university talking, there are programs there, there's a group through magnet in youngstown in northeast ohio about putting -- getting -- helping soldiers and sailors and marines leaving the service, integrating into the classroom and helping them find jobs in that region, someplace we've fallen woefully short. manufacturing, which was moving along steadily earlier this year, we had seen 12, 13, 14, 15 months of job growth in manufacturing, not enough job growth but some, that's even slowing down. steps taken through the auto rescue and other things we did in the last couple of years dealing with this terrible, terrible recession created in 2007 and 2008 the auto rescue saved millions -- auto rescue and other efforts saved millions of americans from joining the unemployment rolls and we're seeing a better auto industry, an auto industry coming back, especially in places like defiance and toledo and northwood
spending at all levels, including the military, as we bring our troops home from afghanistan. and, yes, it needs to look at the money that we spend through our tax code -- and we've talked about this over and over again. we need to have a balanced approach, a credible approach to manage our debt. and that should be our first option. but under no circumstances should we allow america to default on its obligations, causing harm to every american family. i urge-colleagues to put the national -- i urge my colleagues to put the national interests first, to take off the table the default on our debt, take that off the table, let's put the national interest first, work together to bring about a credible plan to manage our national debt. and with that, mr. president, i would yield the floor and suggest the an -- before i do that, i would suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:
to pakistan? and afghanistan? why send all of that money over there? get our troops out of all of these other countries that we need them in. germany and philippines and all of the other places anymore. >> host: here's leslie -- excuse me, tammy in leslie, kentucky. >> caller: yes, they need to bring our troops home and stop spending the millions of billions. they need to help out the people on social security. it's hard to make it especially when you have a family. >> host: florida, linda on the independent line. where do things stand with the debt and deficit negotiations? >> caller: i think personally it's all bull crap. you've got people that is -- has been on the social security because they are either disabled or whatever. bring our troops home. we don't need to support pakistan. look what they did to us, we don't need to support iran. bring us home. get us out of that situation. we have people out here that fought for the country. now they are going to suffer because he wants to cut back the social security, medicare, and medicaid? that's nuts. i think just bring our people home. start
the following. you could eliminate all the bush/obama tax cuts. you could pull out of iraq, afghanistan and southwest asia tomorrow. you could end up eliminating all congressional earmarks and you could eliminate all foreign aid which people think is a big number but it's not, that's about 15 to 20% of the problem. the government has grown too big, promised too much, waited too long to restructure. yes, we're going to have to have more revenues as compared to historical levels but we need to go about it in an intelligent way that will make our system fairer, more equitable, more comparative and it will promote job growth and promote innovation. last i think this, on the comeback america initiative, preemptive framework, there's an additional $500 billion for critical investments over the next two years in order to help the economic recovery and to deal with unemployment. nonetheless, the net spending reductions over the next 10 years are over 3 trillion. so, yes, we need to do some things to make sure we recover and get unemployment down but if we don't end up putting our finances in or
currently we have soldiers fighting in afghanistan and people don't seem to forget that. i would not say any prime minister is not fighting for the right people. continues to fight for the right people. >> how would any of those prime ministers ask as editor or chief executive how often or would they ever ask you not to publish a story? would they ask you to spike a story? would that happen? >> i can't remember an occasion of prime minister asked that. >> politicians generally do that? >> no. i can remember many occasions when a cabinet minister or politician or prime minister was very unhappy with stories we were running and -- not that they would ask us not to. >> if they had you would have been interested anyway? >> if the story was true and accurate, no reason for a prime minister -- that is why we have a free press. >> final question. still a feeling that in some way you had a close relationship with the prime minister. the allegation seems to be is no different -- the benefit of what people need to see. you have a close relationship with the prime minister. that was helpful to him and
and afghanistan, saving $1 trillion in the process. our troops in the middle east deserve our admiration and praise for so successfully carrying out their missions. we must, however, continue to press for a strategy that will bring our troops home as soon as we safely can. the reid deficit plan would find an additional $40 billion in savings by cutting fraud and abuse in tax compliance and a number of non-defense federal programs and $60 billion in other savings, including cutting unnecessary spending on agricultural subsidies and auctioning off electromagnetic spectrum that the government currently holds. finally, by cutting the government by over $2 trillion, we'll have to borrow less money than anticipated and that will save an additional $400 million -- sorry, $400 billion in projected interest costs. in total, the senate democratic plan on which we will vote would cut the deficits by $2.7 trillion over the next ten years. while senator reid's proposal would not address the tax gimmicks and loopholes throughout our tax code that help favor the well-connected, this omission does not m
raging abroad in iraq and afghanistan, also unpaid for. and a new entitlement program passed in the past congress unpaid for. and a wall street that instead of being a free market was a free-for-all market. you put that all together and that's what we're coming out of. so i'm wondering, you know, your answer to me suggests that there isn't anymore monetary policy that is going to come forward that could in essence seek a more faster, more robust recovery with a greater job growth? >> well, as i said in my, in my testimony, we, given that there's a lot of uncertainty how the economy will evolve, we have to keep all options, both for tightening and for easing on the table. we're doing that. but, again, we are already providing an exceptional amount of accommodation and, as you know, recovery is still pretty slow. >> now i want to turn to the question of the debt ceiling. i know you discussed that quite a bit. i find it interesting under president bush's years, he raised the debt ceiling to the tune of about $5.4 trillion, during his period of time. i didn't hear the same comments then that
afghanistan and iraq is just not credible. we don't know what the obstacles are going to be in afghanistan and possibly iraq. we also don't know what we might have to do in the middle east going forward. afghanistan is not settled, mr. president, and we have to have a certain level of stability on the ground in afghanistan or we will have wasted the billions that we have already spent and the lives of our military personnel in afghanistan because it will go back to the way it was before, a center for terrorism that will come to our country or can come to our country. it did once already and we have been over there to try to wipe out al qaeda and the taliban, which has been in league with al qaeda. we have been over there losing american lives and spending american taxpayer dollars to protect our country from another 9/11. to say that we're going to cut $1 trillion in the future over the next ten years when we aren't placing the emphasis on what are the conditions on the ground is not sound policy and it's certainly not sound national security policy. so that's illusory. and then the other
voting, for example, on the war in afghanistan, they are committing the united states of america to spending spending $10 billion a month in defense of our men and women in uniform, members of our family who are over there waging this war. they voted for that. now president obama has said to them the bill's coming in for the war in afghanistan, i have to borrow money to pay for it. and these same members of congress, house and senate, who voted for the war in afghanistan are now saying we won't pay the bills, we won't extend the debt ceiling, we won't allow you, mr. president, to borrow the money to sustain our military forces in afghanistan. that is literally what we're talking about here in this debate. the american people are starting to come to understand it because when you first ask a person do you want to extend the debt ceiling, the obvious answer is no, are you crazy, senator? why would i want more debt in this country? we need less debt, not more. don't you get it? understandably, that's the public reaction, but when you go to the point of explaining that this is to pay
abroad in iraq and afghanistan and new entitlement program unpaid for, and a marketplace that instead of being a free market, which i support, became a free-for-all market in which investor decisions end up becoming collective risks to the entire country. and that's what we have been facing. instead of meeting this responsibility, they favor cuts in entitlements to seniors, to the disabled, the families struggling to make ends meet, to students seeking to get the college education that can help fuel america's prosperity. that's what we saw in the house republican budget that passed. but are willing to decimate our nation's economy to protect entitlements for the rich. they've dug in their heels and walled off irresponsible, unnecessary tax breaks for big oil companies. they've walled off entitlements to multibillion-dollar corporations and millionaires who need no entitlements because they believe, blinded by their ideological haze, that the rich are entitleed to their outrageous ways even if it means ballooning the deficit and sending the nation into default on its debt. entitlements
of the money that we are going to save by not continuing operations and iraq and afghanistan for the next ten years at their current level. that that was also in the rhine and budget. as it turns out, the rise in budget receives $2.2 trillion in savings without using that accounting gimmick triet compared to the president's 2011 number, the ryan budget saves $6.2 trillion without using that accounting gimmick. with the ryan budget does -- if you look through the various charts and pages of it -- it also has various comparisons, including pretty much the obligatory comparison to what is called the current law budget that cbo scores, and in that he compared because that's what cbo does the oco cost for the overseas contingency operation cost, but he did not utilize that in order to achieve the savings in his budget. so i had made the same mistakes others had in assuming what we were told was correct. paul ryan made it clear no, that wasn't correct. when we criticized the bill that the majority leader has brought up for use in over a trillion dollars in savings from that oco account, i think we
of ours in afghanistan and in other trouble spots across the globe. that's personally important to me because 100 years ago this year my grandfather immigrated from crow shay to this country, john begich. then it was spelled p-e-c-g-i-c. he left his farmer and eventually settled in northern minnesota in the iron range. he and his young bride anna had four children, their youngest nikolas, made his way to america's new frontier, alaska, even before we were a staivment he was my father. nick was an educator and eventually was elected alaska's lone member of the united states house of representatives in 1970. i'm honored to follow in his footsteps as a member of the senate, where i'm the only member of croatian dissent. my recent visit was my first to croatia. i was honored to represent the body at the summit along with officials from the state department and u.s. embassy. i was impressed by the great progress under way there as well as the excellent job being performed by our embassy personnel. there are enormous opportunities for partnership between the united states and croatia and i
Search Results 0 to 45 of about 46

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)